R2C2

Last updated

R2C2, Inc., owned by Rusty Carroll, is a company located in Carbondale, Illinois, that operates a group of at least nine sites that sold term papers. According to his attorney, they collectively offered a total of 200,000 to 300,000 papers. [1] The sites include: DoingMyHomework.com, FreeforEssays.com, and FreeforTermPapers.com. [2] [3]

Contents

Carroll and his company had been previously sued by Blue Macellari at Duke University for copyright infringement, false designation of origin, consumer fraud and deception. [4] That suit was settled in 2006. [2] [5] [6] [7]

Class action lawsuit

In 2006, a class action suit was placed against the company and the owner in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Chad Weidner, Karolien Walravens et al. v. Rusty Carroll, and R2C2, charging them with copyright violation for reselling papers written by other authors. [1] On January 11, 2010 David Herndon, chief judge of the district court, ruled that Carroll and his company caused continued "irreparable harm" to an indeterminate number of authors. [8] [9] The plaintiffs are being represented pro bono by McDermott Will & Emery. [10] On February 1, 2010, he further ruled that he would order the site closed unless the owner could prove he has permission from the papers' authors, but would not prohibit him from selling custom-written papers. Many other sites engage in that practice, although at least 17 states prohibit the practice by law. [5] [11]

What others have said about the case

Plaintiff attorney Eric J. Conn said, “We'd like to stop this practice, or get as close to stopping it as we can.” Added associate Rita Weeks, “In the end, our perseverance did pay off.” The named plaintiff in the case, Dr. Chad Weidner, Assistant Professor at University College Roosevelt in the Netherlands, added his personal perspective: "Real research is both time-consuming and difficult. To think that there is some kind of quick fix, be it a paper sold online, a paper borrowed from a peer or creative rewriting of an academic's work, is just unacceptable." [1]

According to Darby Dickenson, Dean of the Stetson University School of Law, "The opinion does help the public see some of the sharp and shady practices of at least some of these companies. The fact that someone was willing to take on the company and litigate for several years is significant." [1]

Recent case developments

In September 2010, the following statement was posted on Carroll's numerous term-paper websites:

"Your rights may be affected by a class action settlement regarding the unauthorized copying and distribution of copyrighted works on websites operated by Rusty Carroll and R2C2, Inc., including doingmyhomework.com, 123schoolwork.com, learnessays.com, freefortermpapers.com, and freeforessays.com.
Authors Chad Weidner and Karolien Walravens filed a class action lawsuit against Rusty Carroll and R2C2, Inc. ("Defendants") in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on October 6, 2006, alleging violations of the Copyright Act on behalf of themselves and a class of individuals similarly situated.
What Does Settlement Provide? The settlement, if court-approved, enjoins Defendants from operating or participating in the ownership or operation of any website that hosts works of authorship and provides for a judgment in the amount of $300,000 against Defendants. Plaintiffs agree to stay the execution of the $300,000 judgment so long as Defendants continue to comply with the terms of a permanent injunction requiring the permanent shut down of all of Defendants’ Term Paper Websites. The settlement also provides that Defendants pay $20,000 to be paid over the course of 7 years to cover:
  • (1) notice to class members of the settlement;
  • (2) reasonable attorneys’ costs and expenses in bringing this lawsuit; and
  • (3) a $2,500 payment to each of the named class representatives.
Who is Included?
The settlement class includes "all persons or entities who are the owners of the materials offered to the public through Carroll’s Term Paper Websites" except those individuals who both have the legal authority to grant and who granted Defendants proper authorization to use their materials.
What Should I Do?
You do not have the right to exclude yourself from the settlement in this case. The case was certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1) as a "non-opt out" class action. Therefore, you will be bound by any judgments or orders that are entered in this Action and, if the settlement is approved, you will be deemed to have released Defendants Rusty Carroll and R2C2, Inc. from all claims that were or could have been asserted in this case or otherwise included in the release in the settlement, other than your right to obtain the relief provided to you, if any, by the settlement. Although you cannot opt out of the settlement agreement, you can object to the settlement and ask the Court not to approve the settlement in its current form.
The Court will hold a hearing in this case, Weidner, et al. v. Carroll, et al., Case No. 06-782-DRH-PMF, at 2:00 PM CST on January 20, 2011, to consider whether to approve the settlement agreement. You may ask to appear at the hearing, but it is not required." [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]

What others have said

The court decision has brought attention to the issue of term paper mills and academic integrity: "Academic performance in its pure form is exercised from the student-outward. Hopefully this sets an example to other websites who may provide a similar service." [17] Another respondent added: "Why is he fined only $20,000?" [17] A poster called jbarman was even more direct: "You must be kidding. Over and above the copyright issues, this is a guy who contributed to the widespread and growing cheating and plagiarism problems that take so much of our collective time as educators." [17] Walkerst asserts that a term paper website "facilitates plagiarism, fraud, and more". [17]

Related Research Articles

A class action, also known as a class action lawsuit, class suit, or representative action, is a type of lawsuit where one of the parties is a group of people who are represented collectively by a member or members of that group. The class action originated in the United States and is still predominantly an American phenomenon, but Canada, as well as several European countries with civil law, have made changes in recent years to allow consumer organizations to bring claims on behalf of consumers.

Kazaa Media Desktop. was a peer-to-peer file sharing application using the FastTrack protocol licensed by Joltid Ltd. and operated as Kazaa by Sharman Networks. Kazaa was subsequently under license as a legal music subscription service by Atrinsic, Inc., which lasted until August 2012.

The multinational technology corporation Apple Inc. has been a participant in various legal proceedings and claims since it began operation and, like its competitors and peers, engages in litigation in its normal course of business for a variety of reasons. In particular, Apple is known for and promotes itself as actively and aggressively enforcing its intellectual property interests. From the 1980s to the present, Apple has been plaintiff or defendant in civil actions in the United States and other countries. Some of these actions have determined significant case law for the information technology industry and many have captured the attention of the public and media. Apple's litigation generally involves intellectual property disputes, but the company has also been a party in lawsuits that include antitrust claims, consumer actions, commercial unfair trade practice suits, defamation claims, and corporate espionage, among other matters.

<i>National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp.</i> 2006 American class action lawsuit

National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corporation, 452 F. Supp. 2d 946, was a class action lawsuit in the United States that was filed on February 7, 2006, in the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda, and subsequently moved to federal court. The case challenged whether the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, specifically Title III's provisions prohibiting discrimination by "places of public accommodation", apply to websites and/or the Internet, or are restricted to physical places.

Vroegh v. Eastman Kodak Company, et al. is a class action complaint that alleges that the defendants, "[i]n marketing, advertising and/or packaging their Flash Memory Cards and Flash Memory Drives, Defendants misrepresent the size of the memory storage contained in the Flash Memory Cards and Flash Memory Drives." The complaint accuses the defendants of "false advertising, unfair business practices, breach of contract, fraud, deceit and/or misrepresentation, and violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedy Act".

<i>Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc.</i> Legal case

Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc., 75 F. Supp. 2d 1290, was a United States district court decision on the subject of deep linking and contributory infringement of copyright.

Arts and media industry trade groups, such as the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) and Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), strongly oppose and attempt to prevent copyright infringement through file sharing. The organizations particularly target the distribution of files via the Internet using peer-to-peer software. Efforts by trade groups to curb such infringement have been unsuccessful with chronic, widespread and rampant infringement continuing largely unabated.

<i>Jacobsen v. Katzer</i>

Jacobsen v. Katzer was a lawsuit between Robert Jacobsen (plaintiff) and Matthew Katzer (defendant), filed March 13, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The case addressed claims on copyright, patent invalidity, cybersquatting, and Digital Millennium Copyright Act issues arising from Jacobsen under an open source license developing control software for model trains.

<i>Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp.</i>

Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation, 280 F.3d 934 withdrawn, re-filed at 336 F.3d 811, is a U.S. court case between a commercial photographer and a search engine company. During the case, ownership of Arriba Soft changed to Sorceron, the operator of the Internet search engine Ditto.com. The court found that US search engines may use thumbnails of images, though the issue of inline linking to full size images instead of going to the original site was not resolved.

Denise Louise Cote is a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copyright troll</span> Party that enforces copyrights for purposes of making money through litigation

A copyright troll is a party that enforces copyrights it owns for purposes of making money through strategic litigation, in a manner considered unduly aggressive or opportunistic, sometimes without producing or licensing the works it owns for paid distribution. Critics object to the activity because they believe it does not encourage the production of creative works, but instead makes money through the inequities and unintended consequences of high statutory damages provisions in copyright laws intended to encourage creation of such works.

<i>Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.</i> U.S. copyright court case

Viacom International, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d 19, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decision regarding liability for copyright infringement committed by the users of an online video hosting platform.

<i>1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc.</i> American legal case

1-800 CONTACTS v. WhenU.com was a legal dispute beginning in 2002 over pop-up advertisements. It was brought by 1-800 Contacts, an online distributor of various brands of contact lenses against WhenU SaveNow, a maker of advertising software. The suit also named Vision Direct, one of WhenU advertising customers, as a co-defendant. 1-800 CONTACTS alleged that the advertisements provided by WhenU, which advertised competitors of 1-800 CONTACTS when people viewed the company's web site, were "inherently deceptive" and that one of the advertisements "misleads users into falsely believing the pop-up advertisements supplied by WhenU.com are in actuality advertisements authorized by and originating with the underlying Web site".

<i>Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC</i> 2010 United States district court case

Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC, 715 F. Supp. 2d 481, is a United States district court case in which the Southern District of New York held that Lime Group LLC, the defendant, induced copyright infringement with its peer-to-peer file sharing software, LimeWire. The court issued a permanent injunction to shut it down. The lawsuit is a part of a larger campaign against piracy by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).

<i>Smith v. Summit Entertainment LLC</i>

Smith v. Summit Entertainment LLC, No. 3:11-cv-00348, was a case heard by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, in which professional singer Matthew Smith, known as Matt Heart, sued Summit Entertainment. Smith asserted seven causes of action for Summit Entertainment's wrongful use of copyright takedown notice on the website YouTube, among which three were dismissed and four were ruled in Smith's favor. The case is noteworthy given that copyright 17 U.S.C. § 512 claims are hard to win, and the plaintiff's success was due to the combination of his persuasive story and convincing additional claims which complemented § 512.

<i>Ouellette v. Viacom International Inc.</i> US legal case

Ouellette v. Viacom, No. 9:10-cv-00133; 2011 WL 1882780, found the safe harbor provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) did not create liability for service providers that take down non-infringing works. This case limited the claims that can be filed against service providers by establishing immunity for service providers' takedown of fair use material, at least from grounds under the DMCA. The court left open whether another "independent basis of liability" could serve as legal grounds for an inappropriate takedown.

High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation is a 2010 United States Department of Justice (DOJ) antitrust action and a 2013 civil class action against several Silicon Valley companies for alleged "no cold call" agreements which restrained the recruitment of high-tech employees.

<i>Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1–1,495</i>

Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1–1,495, Civil Action No. 11-1741 (JDB/JMF), was a United States District Court for the District of Columbia case in which the court held that anonymous users of the peer-to-peer file sharing service BitTorrent could not remain anonymous after charges of copyright infringement were brought against them. The court ultimately dismissed the case, but the identities of defendants were publicly exposed.

Google has been involved in multiple lawsuits over issues such as privacy, advertising, intellectual property and various Google services such as Google Books and YouTube. The company's legal department expanded from one to nearly 100 lawyers in the first five years of business, and by 2014 had grown to around 400 lawyers. Google's Chief Legal Officer is Senior Vice President of Corporate Development David Drummond.

In 1938, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster gave away the copyright to Superman to Detective Comics, Inc., the predecessor of DC Comics. In 1948, National Comics settled ownership and royalties disputes and paid $94,013.16 for Superman and Superboy rights. In 1969, a court ruled that Siegel and Shuster's grant of copyright included their renewal rights. Shuster died in 1992 and his heirs re-granted their rights for a $25,000 annual stipend. In 2001, the Siegel heirs took back their rights using the termination provision of the Copyright Act of 1976 and accepted a new purchase offer from Warner.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Markline, Mary Beth (February 1, 2010). "Ruling on term paper sites raises copyright questions". USA Today . Retrieved February 5, 2010.
  2. 1 2 Lederman, Doug (September 2, 2005). "New Tack Against Term Paper Providers". Inside Higher Ed . Retrieved February 5, 2010.
  3. ↑ "Federal Judge Tells Term-Paper Mill to Prove It's Legit or Close Up Shop". Chronicle of Higher Education . February 2, 2010.
  4. ↑ Lederman, Doug (September 2, 2005). "New Tack Against Term Paper Providers". Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved 15 February 2010.
  5. 1 2 "Term-paper mills: Courts and compensation". USA Today . November 19, 2009. Retrieved February 5, 2010.
  6. ↑ "MOTION TO DISMISS OF RUSTY CARROLL AND R2C2, INC." justia.com
  7. ↑ "Author Sues Web Sites Selling Term Papers". Washington Post . Associated Press. September 2, 2005. Retrieved February 5, 2010.
  8. ↑ "Chad Weidner et. al. v. Carroll et. al" (PDF). .ilsd.uscourts.gov. January 21, 2010. Retrieved 15 February 2010.
  9. ↑ "Blik op nieuws".
  10. ↑ "McDermott Pro Bono Team Wins Permanent Injunction In Class Action Against Term Paper Websites". McDermott, Will & Emery. February 5, 2010. Retrieved 15 February 2010.
  11. ↑ RA-docenten winnen zaak om plagiaat at the Wayback Machine (archived 2011-09-28)
  12. ↑ www.doingmyhomework.com
  13. ↑ www.123schoolwork.com
  14. ↑ www.learnessays.com
  15. ↑ www.freefortermpapers.com
  16. ↑ www.freeforessays.com
  17. 1 2 3 4 Chapman, Paige (October 25, 2010). "Settlement Reached in Essay-Mill Lawsuit". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved July 15, 2024.(subscription required)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.